I'm looking to point some people to it, but I don't want to use it at a source if there's a constant battle with vinyl placebophiles to keep it accurate.
It "looks true" to me and there are a lot of smart, scientific, minds around here.
Vinyl does sound different* from digital and if someone prefers the sound of vinyl then it truly sounds better to them and there's no point in arguing.
* That's assuming the same master... If you digitize vinyl the digital copy can sound identical to the original analog (in a proper scientific-blind listening test).
It was more or less ok last time I looked. I stopped policing it quite some time ago. You can view the edit history. If you don’t recognize a user, check the contribution.
“Many people prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats, a majority of those people do so because they honestly percieve the sound to be better. Better meaning; more natural, less artificial, more true to the original studio recording, more organic etc, even when unsupported by objective measurements of fidelity. For such people the statement that "vinyl sounds better than CD" is not a myth but a fact.”
This is pretty ridiculous. Subjectivity is fine, but this is going too far. Reworded to say it is a fact that people believe fairies actually exist would be OK. This is with regards to the original to the studio recording portion, assuming these subjective terms are to be accepted.
I’m cool with the part above that isn’t in bold.
Sigh....
It's so hard for anyone in the audio hobby to ever discuss anything objective. They always throw around terms that can't be objectively measured, such as "detail" and "clarity." Trying to find a good objective source with real world measurements that matter is very difficult.
Such an old argument which will never be settled.
For me:
1. technical measurements will always show digital to be a more faithful reproduction than vinyl.
2. many people prefer vinyl to digital, as the technical fact that digital is more faithful to the original is not the end of it.
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
Such an old argument which will never be settled.
For me:
1. technical measurements will always show digital to be a more faithful reproduction than vinyl.
2. many people prefer vinyl to digital, as the technical fact that digital is more faithful to the original is not the end of it.
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
3. No people have be able to demonstrate ability to distinguish vinyl vs "digital" version of said vinyl in any valid, controlled listening test.
Tests which are lots of fun to perform on vinylphile believers.
Such an old argument which will never be settled.
For me:
1. technical measurements will always show digital to be a more faithful reproduction than vinyl.
2. many people prefer vinyl to digital, as the technical fact that digital is more faithful to the original is not the end of it.
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
3. No people have be able to demonstrate ability to distinguish vinyl vs "digital" version of said vinyl in any valid, controlled listening test.
Tests which are lots of fun to perform on vinylphile believers.
I don't think anyone says they can hear the difference between a vinyl and a high quality digital recording of a record? Vinyl fans would be wrong to say that they can, but that doesn't mean they're wrong for preferring playing a record over a FLAC.
We’ve had our fair share of people claiming to distinguish analog from digital.
Subjective preference is still preference, even when it is baseless. However, It does no one any good for there to be a paragraph listing various subjective claims as to why people may have them. Especially one that doesn’t explain the physiology.
Back to the original question, I did not identify any edits that contain misinformation since I last read the page. I don’t think I was ever happy with the page, which to me seems poorly structured and somewhat directionless. I also have a feeling that there are testable claims which ought to include citations but don’t have them.
I don't think anyone says they can hear the difference between a vinyl and a high quality digital recording of a record?
I wasn't referring to a recording of vinyl, which might actually be detectable due to the variability of each play of a record. I meant a
real time comparison, literally, of vinyl playback. Regardless, I suspect the vast majority of vinylphiles believe they could detect the difference, because they believe it is the "digital" that creates artifacts, "artificial", less orgasmic, etc, etc as stated in the moronic blathering on Wiki.
Heck, I've seen that kind of idiocy right here, much less on the believer forums where its practically all that.
Why is that drivel even in there?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD for a variety of reasons, some of which aren’t rooted in an objective reality. How’s that a myth?
Such an old argument which will never be settled.
For me:
1. technical measurements will always show digital to be a more faithful reproduction than vinyl.
2. many people prefer vinyl to digital, as the technical fact that digital is more faithful to the original is not the end of it.
Those two statements aren't contradictory.
3. No people have be able to demonstrate ability to distinguish vinyl vs "digital" version of said vinyl in any valid, controlled listening test.
Tests which are lots of fun to perform on vinylphile believers.
How is this possible. The first pop or click you hear will instantly give it away.
Why is that drivel even in there?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD for a variety of reasons, some of which aren’t rooted in an objective reality. How’s that a myth?
A lot of it may just be nostalgia. It's quite possible the digital release of an album might sound different. For example, Hotel California by the Eagles was mastered by Ted Jensen for vinyl in the 70s. Barry Diament remastered the album for CD for it's 1982 release. I would think the two versions are not going to be identical. People used to the vinyl release probably think it's better just because they're used to it. Familiarity breeds content. I'm sure people that grew up in the digital music era may prefer a CD release over vinyl for the very same reason.
It's all VERY subjective. For a lot of people, they like what they know.
How is this possible. The first pop or click you hear will instantly give it away.
I believe we are talking about comparing the vinyl to a digitized copy of the vinyl which of course would include all of the vinyl noise and other vinyl defects and inaccuracies.
How is this possible.
TT/vinyl >
Dual output phono pre >output 1> Input 1 preamp, output 2>ADC/DAC loop> Input 2 preamp. Match voltages>amp. Switch between inputs, or use an ABX box in lieu of preamp these days.
The first pop or click you hear will instantly give it away.
The "digital" click pops or the "analog" ones? None have done so this far.
**Nothing is recorded
Why is that drivel even in there?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD for a variety of reasons, some of which aren’t rooted in an objective reality. How’s that a myth?
A lot of it may just be nostalgia. It's quite possible the digital release of an album might sound different. For example, Hotel California by the Eagles was mastered by Ted Jensen for vinyl in the 70s. Barry Diament remastered the album for CD for it's 1982 release. I would think the two versions are not going to be identical. People used to the vinyl release probably think it's better just because they're used to it. Familiarity breeds content. I'm sure people that grew up in the digital music era may prefer a CD release over vinyl for the very same reason.
It's all VERY subjective. For a lot of people, they like what they know.
How does any of that qualify as a myth?
Why is that drivel even in there?
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD for a variety of reasons, some of which aren’t rooted in an objective reality. How’s that a myth?
A lot of it may just be nostalgia. It's quite possible the digital release of an album might sound different. For example, Hotel California by the Eagles was mastered by Ted Jensen for vinyl in the 70s. Barry Diament remastered the album for CD for it's 1982 release. I would think the two versions are not going to be identical. People used to the vinyl release probably think it's better just because they're used to it. Familiarity breeds content. I'm sure people that grew up in the digital music era may prefer a CD release over vinyl for the very same reason.
It's all VERY subjective. For a lot of people, they like what they know.
How does any of that qualify as a myth?
It doesn't qualify as a myth. But if you edit the page, a vinylphile will just come along and put it back.
With that in mind we should be happy there hasn’t been any recent vandalism.
So, the other question I have is, what exactly is this "vinyl sound' everyone talks about.
I just watched an interesting YouTube video where the person discussed vinyl era recordings being done long before the loudness wars, and the "rich, warm, dynamic sound" may just be the person appreciation a recording with more dynamic range.
Having recently bought a turntable, I have to say that the sheer inconvenience of the format is quite the irritation. Just from end user simplicity of operation, I can see why CDs won out over LPs.
what exactly is this "vinyl sound' everyone talks about.
"Snap", "crackle", and "pop"? :P I guess some people enjoy the warm crackle of vinyl on a cold Winter's evening! :D
I just watched an interesting YouTube video where the person discussed vinyl era recordings being done long before the loudness wars, and the "rich, warm, dynamic sound" may just be the person appreciation a recording with more dynamic range.
"Dynamic" has a meaning but the person who used the word may not know what it means.. "Rich" and "warm" can mean whatever you want them to mean. These terms have no scientific. technical, or agreed-upon meaning. You can't measure or quantify these things. They are
nonsense. We CAN measure & quantify noise, frequency response, and distortion and these have real meanings.
Technically, vinyl is inferior. Digitized vinyl can sound identical to the original analog (in a proper-blind listening test).
A vinyl copy of a digital recording will sound different from the digital original, but that's hard to "prove" because we can't make our own records and you (almost) never know if your vinyl and digital recordings are from the same master.
The loudness war did exist in the analog days and from what I've read Motown Records "won" that war. But the digital "weapons" are much more effective. A CD from that era that's not "badly" remastered (or a modern CD that hasn't been "badly" mastered) will usually sound better. CDs (and MP3s) have more dynamic range capability than vinyl, but the dynamic contrast of the music depends on the performance and the production process.
BTW - There is a "simple" (and inaccurate) way of measuring dynamic range that makes vinyl (cut from the same master) measure "better" than the digital, even though you can't hear a difference in dynamics. Something similar happens with MP3 encoding... Some peaks get higher and some peaks get lower (without affecting the sound) and that can give you a wider "measured" dynamic range.
I can see why CDs won out over LPs.
Plus, they sound better and they don't deteriorate or "wear out" from playing, and they are more-immune to scratches or other damage.
I grew-up with vinyl and it was the
sound quality that won me over. I was amazed at the dead-silent background. After getting my 1st CD player I never bought another record and like most people (or most music lovers) of my age I replaced all of my vinyl with CDs unless the CD was unavailable. Now, I never play records except when I digitize them.
I
always hated the clicks & pops, even before CDs were invented. It seemed to bother me more than it bothered my friends. It was particularly annoying when it was my record and I knew exactly when that "click" was coming. I'd be anticipating the click instead of enjoying the music. I
tried to take care of my records but they always "developed" defects.
And as a rule CDs had better, more-consistent, frequency response. I think with records (at least popular/rock records) they didn't really care. There were exceptions. There were some really great sounding records and I think things were getting better toward the end of the vinyl era, but with CDs I think the producers/manufactures knew that CD listeners expected better. And those great-sounding records sounded even better on CD!
Cassettes didn't have clicks & pops, but they had tape hiss and records had better frequency response and a new good-sounding record sounded better than the cassette, so I stuck with records at home and only listened to cassettes in the car.
BTW - I didn't expect the loudness wars. I expected artists & producers to take advantage of the improved dynamic range. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
The only reason I have a turntable now is for some recordings that I can't get on another format.
What's interesting to me is the insane amount of effort that people go through to get rid of pops and clicks. I'm watching YouTube videos of people buying $500 ultrasonic cleaners to clean old records to get rid of pops and clicks.
Meanwhile, I take my dirty thrift store CD, wash both sides with dawn dish soap and a sponge, rinse and let dry, and I'm done. Then I make a bit-perfect backup to FLAC files and move on with my listening.
I will say that it LOOKED cool to take an album out and drop it on the turntable and watch it spin. Had flashbacks to my youth. Then I turned around to work on my computer, and suddenly I didn't care about the format that was playing (out of sight, out of mind), and actually got a little annoyed when I had to flip the album over.
BTW - I didn't expect the loudness wars. I expected artists & producers to take advantage of the improved dynamic range. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
There was a time in the 80s where people took advantage of the increased dynamic range of a CD. Albums like Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms are a treat for the ears. But then the loudness wars took off in the 90s, and hit their atrocious peak in the 2000s.
A lot of vinylphiles claim that vinyl sounds it's best when used with analog masters and a full analog recording process.
My son wants to be an audio engineer. So, he's been watching a lot of YouTube videos from other mixing and mastering engineers. There was one by Trevor Horn, where he says every recording engineer needs to do a full analog workflow once in their life. Because once they do that, they'll NEVER want to do it again.
I wonder if the person that engineered the new Styx album (The Mission) went "Oh God! No!" when they said they wanted to record the whole thing in analog.
What's interesting to me is the insane amount of effort that people go through to get rid of pops and clicks. I'm watching YouTube videos of people buying $500 ultrasonic cleaners to clean old records to get rid of pops and clicks.
Well... More than once I've spent a weekend (digitally) "cleaning up" a digitized record. If it was "just dirt", I might have bought one of those.... I have a
Discwasher (https://www.needledoctor.com/Discwasher-D4-Kit) and a Shure cartridge with a built-in brush, and I used to have something like
this (https://www.vinylrecordcleaningsystem.com/). It came out of the bottle as a gel and the bottle/dispenser had a built-in sponge. You spread it over the surface and let it dry to a film. Then you'd peel off the film, removing any dust/dirt.
There was a time in the 80s where people took advantage of the increased dynamic range of a CD. Albums like Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms are a treat for the ears.
One of my favorite groups! I remember hearing
Sultans Of Swing on the radio and thinking. "What kind of music is that? ...Is that rock & roll or something new/different?" (Now that I've heard it a million times it doesn't sound that "different".) I had to wait for it to be played a few more times before I heard the DJ announce the artist and I went-out and bought the album (on vinyl... 1978). It was one of those rare times when I liked every song on the album!
My son wants to be an audio engineer. So, he's been watching a lot of YouTube videos from other mixing and mastering engineers.
Hopefully, he's "in touch" with HydrogenAudio because there is a ton of nonsense out there. The pro world isn't as bad as the audiophile world but there is still
a lot of myth & nonsense and most "recording engineers" are don't have the same scientific/engineering/mathematical education as electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, or software engineers. They
do know how to make good sounding records (or over-compressed loudness war records if that's what their boss/client wants) but they
may not understand "audio resolution" and they may not be aware of the limits of human hearing (even the limits their own hearing).
He might enjoy
Jeff Emrick's book (https://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Recording-Beatles/dp/1592402690). (He was the engineer, or assistant engineer on most of The Beatles recordings.) And/or you might enjoy it too! It's not a technical-recording book, and if it was I would be outdated. It's more like an autobiography about his life as a recording engineer. There are lots of good-interesting stories if he can relate to something from the 1960s.
...As you know, this is a "tough business". There are lots of amateur/hobbyist & part-time audio engineers and very few full-time jobs. There are
probably more "audio jobs" in film & TV than in music.
There was one by Trevor Horn, where he says every recording engineer needs to do a full analog workflow once in their life. Because once they do that, they'll NEVER want to do it again.
Yeah... :D :D :D There's a big-practical problem of the tape machine... Nobody is making professional or multitrack tape recorders anymore so you'd be dealing with old machinery and of course replacement parts aren't being made either. Those things did need "regular maintenance and calibration" and in the old days the recording studios had maintenance engineers to take care of that. Now, you'd have to bring-in someone to do it. I imagine the tape (especially 1/2-inch or wider) is "hard to find" and very expensive. (I've never seen a professional audio recorder "in person" but I have seen an Ampex 2-inch reel-to-reel video tape machine! They called it a VTR" and it was a monster the size of a desk.)
There is at least one company making
reel-to-reel tape recorders (http://www.ballfinger.de/tape-recorder-m-063-hx) but they are 1/4-inch stereo machines so I'd classify them as "prosumer" or "audiophile" products.
There is an article in the current (September?)
Recording Magazine about re-mastering (and I think re-mixing) the Toto catalog. I kind-of skimmed the article but I think they said all of the processing was "analog", but they start by digitizing the tape. And, the guy said they didn't do
any compression or limiting.
He and I have had long discussions about the limits of human hearing and the snake oil that is hi-res music. I own some SACDs and DVD-As, because it contains a unique master than I want. At least with the SACD, I can just rip the CD layer. The DVD-A, I don't even know how I could rip it. I know I'd need to resample and dither to get it down to "only CD quality."
He and I have had long discussions about the limits of human hearing and the snake oil that is hi-res music. I own some SACDs and DVD-As, because it contains a unique master than I want. At least with the SACD, I can just rip the CD layer. The DVD-A, I don't even know how I could rip it. I know I'd need to resample and dither to get it down to "only CD quality."
If you use Windows, DVDA - what's in the 'Audio TS' folder of a DVDA disc - is easy to rip with the right software. e.g. DVD Audio Extractor (which costs money) or DVD Audio Explorer (which is free). Google's your friend there. In both case, you load the disc into the computer's DVD drive, aim the software at it (or at the folder thereon), specify the data you're interested in (stereo or multichannel) and output format (wav, flac, etc) and off you go. DVD Audio Extractor is more user-friendly and has more options. It can also rip DVD-V disc audio (Dolby, DTS, PCM), and from certain BluRay discs.
SACD (DSD) only became 'rip-able' in recent years, and is more complex to rip in that it requires *quite particular (https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/rip-sacd-with-a-blu-ray-player.3652/)* player hardware, as well as software and network setup.
SACD (DSD) only became 'rip-able' in recent years, and is more complex to rip in that it requires *quite particular* player hardware, as well as software and network setup.
I just want to rip the CD layer. In theory, it should be the same master as the SACD layer, so ripping the CD layer is more than good enough. And any CD ripping app will rip the CD layer.
I just want to rip the CD layer. In theory, it should be the same master as the SACD layer,
Unfortunately that theory is not always true. Famous case in point,
Dark Side of the Moon.
Care to elaborate? What happened with Dark Side of the Moon SACD?
Not sure about that specific disk, but different mastering between the formats on DVDA/SACD does happen.
Not sure about that specific disk, but different mastering between the formats on DVDA/SACD does happen.
Oh, that I am sure of.
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
I'm just curious about some examples in the wild of this.
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
Cough, cough, *MQA*, cough, cough
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
Cough, cough, *MQA*, cough, cough
You mean that lossy compression method that audiophiles somehow believe is the ONLY loss compression on the planet that sounds better than the lossless original?
If Stereophile magazine says it's true, it must be true.
You mean that lossy compression method that audiophiles somehow believe is the ONLY loss compression on the planet that sounds better than the lossless original?
Remastering can, maybe, possibly, be beneficial...
How does mastering for lossy compression actually work?
I.e. with a lossy compressor down the line. Do they simply filter such that artefacts are less likely?
How does mastering for lossy compression actually work?
I've never heard of that, but it would depend on the mastering engineer (or the mastering engineer's client).
It's the encoder's job to optimize the compression of whatever you feed it.
It would be a bad idea to compromise sound quality to get "better compression". Similarly, it's usually a bad idea to "tweak" your LAME settings.... The developers have already put-in a lot of effort to optimize the default settings for the best overall compromise.
I believe the lossy version is usually the same as the CD version. "High resolution" releases
may have less compression. The vinyl master
may have some additional filtering to remove the very-low frequencies, and to make sure the low frequencies are mono, etc.
Apple (https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf) recommends a high-quality high-resolution master for iTunes (AAC).
Sure looks like this topic got lost in the weeds.
Care to elaborate? What happened with Dark Side of the Moon SACD?
CD side was mastered with more compression than the DSD stereo.
https://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html
They come from the same *master tapes*, if that's what you meant. But the *mastering for disc* varied by final digital format (PCM vs DSD).
And I can also believe that some unscrupulous record label will include a different master on the SACD layer vs the CD layer of an SACD to convince you that the SACD sounds better.
ahem
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.
what 'protective coating' would that be?
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.
what 'protective coating' would that be?
I definitely have to call bullshit on that myth as well as I've actually cleaned a record that way. Probably started by some company that sells LP cleaner. Vinyl is a very tough plastic, so there is zero need to have a protective coating on it. Although I wish CDs had the coating Blu-Rays have after seeing how some people mishandle them. I'm not the type of person that abuses their stuff but I'm not exactly trusting of letting others handle or touch my things.
Btw another vinyl myth that could probably use busting is 'if you clean an LP with an alcohol solution, you will *remove its protective coating*'.
what 'protective coating' would that be?
I definitely have to call bullshit on that myth as well as I've actually cleaned a record that way. Probably started by some company that sells LP cleaner. Vinyl is a very tough plastic, so there is zero need to have a protective coating on it. Although I wish CDs had the coating Blu-Rays have after seeing how some people mishandle them. I'm not the type of person that abuses their stuff but I'm not exactly trusting of letting others handle or touch my things.
... here's a currently online example of this:
"The most contentious of the lot and one that will have a few readers and some hi-fi journalists up in arms is pure, isopropyl alcohol (as opposed to the remnants of your last vodka and tonic). This stuff can be disastrous for vinyl. The problem is, it also lies within many commercial record cleaning products, so look carefully at the ingredients before you use them. Pure alcohol strips away much of the rubbish and gunge from grooves – which is great – but it also removes the protective coating that rests on the groove walls/floor. I don’t mean the oft talked about ‘release agent’ that a record pressing plant utilises and is often left to bung up vinyl grooves, either. Once that essential protective layer is gone, music sounds harsh and brittle. I’ve done a series of sound tests to prove this phenomenon. Initially, alcohol-cleaned records sound great. After the third or fourth clean, they sound terrible. By then, though, it’s too late and your record has been irretrievably scarred." ~ https://thevinylfactory.com/features/8-easy-and-affordable-ways-to-clean-your-vinyl-records-by-hand/
My friend who owned a record store for many years explained to me that the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog. He said the AAD or the ADD CDs were best. I prefer AAD. He also told me it wasn't the internet that killed the record store, it was the CD. He said vinyl records had a 10% defect rate. So if you had Janet Jackson records that didn't sell you could send some back with subsequent orders. He said CDs had something like a .003 defect rate so the stores got stuck with a whole bunch of unsold inventory.
the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog.
It is fitting to the "vynil myths" theme.
My friend who owned a record store for many years explained to me that the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog.
If you (and your record store owning friend) want to really understand how digital audio works, you need to watch this video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
Your friend doesn’t have the foggiest.
"Once that essential protective layer is gone, music sounds harsh and brittle.”
There’s your first clue. Ignoring the predictable unimaginative placebophile bullshit description, it should have instead been along the lines of loss of detail, as I imagine degradation would affect the higher frequency content first.
Your friend doesn’t have the foggiest.
Hah, I told him that for years. He was always bagging on the CD until I had him listen to my new car stereo. He had to admit it sounded incredible then I told him that it doesn't even have a CD player, he was listening to an MP3 I made from a CD lol. Same with another 'audiophile' friend of mine. He said ' it must depend on the signal processor'. I personally think Sony makes the best processor.
Same with another 'audiophile' friend of mine. He said ' it must depend on the signal processor'. I personally think Sony makes the best processor.
It's the amp & speakers. ;)
[/QUOTE]It's the amp & speakers. ;) Alpine S-A55V amp, Alpine S65c & S65 speakers, JL Cp108lg-w3v3 sub 😁
You mean the DAC. Transparent DACs have been a commodity item for many many years now.
You mean the DAC. Transparent DACs have been a commodity item for many many years now.
I'm referring to clear audio. It is a proprietary sound field developed by Sony.
If you (and your record store owning friend) want to really understand how digital audio works, you need to watch this video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
If this forum had an upvote button, I would now hold-press it. Awesome video, and I am not even through. Nice presentation, accessible yet accurate content!
You mean the DAC. Transparent DACs have been a commodity item for many many years now.
I'm referring to clear audio. It is a proprietary sound field developed by Sony.
Which obviously isn’t necessary for an mp3 to sound as good as or better than vinyl.
I prefer AAD.
Painting with a rather broad brush, don’t you think?
I'm going back over 20 years. The first DDD I know of was Judas Priest Live and it sounded flat and lifeless. I don't know why they released it. Present day digital recording hardly resembles the tech of those days. Death Angel recorded their new album in analog, you can hear a slight hiss. I grew up on vinyl, recording to chrome tapes on my dad's Nakamichi. I can see where vinyl 'sounded' better than the early digital and the myth started but tech has evolved as I proved to my audiophile 'vinyl, flac supporting' friends.
I don’t really know where to start. Whether vinyl subjectively sounded better than CD 20 years ago (you can go back another 10 years before that) had as much to do with anything else as it had to do with improvements in technology. And that’s an understatement. Same for releases with different SPARS codes. Considering you’re comparing apples to oranges in all cases you can’t be sure what is the source of your preferences. Your preconceptions/expectation bias notwithstanding.
Here’s something to chew on:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=116482.0
Thanks for your anecdotes.
My friend who owned a record store for many years explained to me that the vibration of a stylus is an exact representation of the soundwave imprinted on a record that drives a speaker. It is a full frequency analog wave that creates the sound where digital recording is a sample of the wave. You can take high frequency samples but it will never be a continuous wave like analog.
If you (and your record store owning friend) want to really understand how digital audio works, you need to watch this video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
That video is awesome. No way to refute it. I can't wait to show him, thanks.
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/nakamichi/600.shtml This is the deck we used in the late 70s early 80s to record records on their first play to Sony chrome tapes. This deck let you manually adjust the bias for each tape by recording a signal which you played back and then use a small screwdriver to adjust till the input matched the output on the vue meter. It made pretty good if not the best recordings you could make at the time. Everyone used to bring their new records to me to record back then, that's how we saved our records.
The first DDD I know of was Judas Priest Live and it sounded flat and lifeless.
That can't be attributed to DDD unless you eliminated all other variables like studio moronism, etc, etc.
How did you eliminate those variables?
My posts tend to be dry and lifeless. Maybe maybe my hair dresser knows how to fix that.
The first DDD I know of was Judas Priest Live and it sounded flat and lifeless.
That can't be attributed to DDD unless you eliminated all other variables like studio moronism, etc, etc.
How did you eliminate those variables?
Yeah, that's what made it so hard to believe they released it. At the time it was touted as the next big thing, Priest was promoting the fact they were using cutting edge technology on their new release because they were such a powerhouse and it was so expensive, then it sounded like that. It made us skeptical of the new process at the time.
In I think it was in '84 my friend and I went to the stereo shop to see the first CD player available in our area. It was an AIWA vertical loading player. We got the disc to turn but couldn't figure out how to make it play. When we got back in the car I said "that's already obsolete, soon they will put the music on a chip." The first time I heard a CD was the helicopter part from The Wall through a Sansui amp and Klipsch speakers. Still gives me goosebumps thinking about it. Never heard anything like that before.
Present day digital recording hardly resembles the tech of those days.
Yeah, that's what made it so hard to believe they released it. At the time it was touted as the next big thing, Priest was promoting the fact they were using cutting edge technology on their new release because they were such a powerhouse and it was so expensive, then it sounded like that. It made us skeptical of the new process at the time.
Us?? Projecting there.
One more time, how did you account for all variables
other than DDD "tech"? Now or then.
Never mind Judas Priest being used to determine tech/SQ...
Hey now. They used synth guitars around that time; Iron Maiden too.
Present day digital recording hardly resembles the tech of those days. Present day digital recording hardly resembles the tech of those days.
Yeah, that's what made it so hard to believe they released it. At the time it was touted as the next big thing, Priest was promoting the fact they were using cutting edge technology on their new release because they were such a powerhouse and it was so expensive, then it sounded like that. It made us
Us?? Projecting there.
One more time, how did you account for all variables other than DDD "tech"? Now or then.
Never mind Judas Priest being used to determine tech/SQ...
I believe this thread is about the origins of the vinyl 'analog' myth. I am relating the thinking of myself and my peers who were using state of the art analog recording and playback equipment at the very time that the medium was changing. We got one of the first DAT machines, blank tapes were $20 and we thought at the time that VHS tapes sounded better for live recordings. Being a person who lived through it, I am just trying to explain our attitudes at the time and what shaped them. Nowadays I'm quite satisfied with MP3 vbr V0 😁
Lots of bluster about Nakamichi et. al; zero acknowledgement that your assertion of DDD being the reason priest...live! is sub-par is without merit.
This is germane to the topic because you used the argument to intimate that, at a minimum, digital recording and mixing were technologically inferior to their analog counterparts back then. At least that’s my impression.
Lots of bluster about Nakamichi et. al; zero acknowledgement that your assertion of DDD being the reason priest...live! is sub-par is without merit.
This is germane to the topic because you used the argument to intimate that, at a minimum, digital recording and mixing were technologically inferior to their analog counterparts back then. At least that’s my impression.
There are plenty of digital recording "back then" that sounded amazing. Mixing and mastering is a subjective process, because a human being at a console decides what's good and what's bad, and the end results sounds best to their subjective opinion on the speakers they have in front of them.
SPARS codes were a marketing device only and provided little to no indication of actual record quality. Though teenage me was all about the DDD back then. So, the marketing worked, at least on me.
Lots of bluster about Nakamichi et. al; zero acknowledgement that your assertion of DDD being the reason priest...live! is sub-par is without merit.
This is germane to the topic because you used the argument to intimate that, at a minimum, digital recording and mixing were technologically inferior to their analog counterparts back then. At least that’s my impression.
There are plenty of digital recording "back then" that sounded amazing. Mixing and mastering is a subjective process, because a human being at a console decides what's good and what's bad, and the end results sounds best to their subjective opinion on the speakers they have in front of them.
SPARS codes were a marketing device only and provided little to no indication of actual record quality. Though teenage me was all about the DDD back then. So, the marketing worked, at least on me.
THere are whole forums (*cough*stevehoffman*cough) full of people who seek out 'target CDs' from the 1980s on the premise that they are the best sounding ones out there.
Not to mention the reverence shown on many audiophool forums for the nirvana-inspirring sound of such early CD releases as Dire Straits
Brothers In Arms The irony couldn't weigh more. Audiophools constantly spreading the myth (started by douchebags like Michael Fremer at Stereophile, btw) that early digital tech was garbage , while simultaneously fetishizing old CDs.
I seek out Target CDs, but not because they sound superior. I just buy them because I think they look nice. I just bought Yes' album 90125 on CD. The Target CD was a whole 50 cents more than the non-target. 50 cents to get a better looking CD was subjectively better to me. I totally get that once it's in the CD player, you can't see the target. But at least I am not claiming I am buying them because they somehow sound better.
The Steve Hoffman Forums are a mix of snake oil and truth. It's difficult to separate one from the other when you read the forums. But when I'm buying an album that has been remastered any number of times, it's one of the tools I use to help make a purchasing decision.
I find it funny that Stereophile claims early digital tech was garbage, while, in the same breath, praising new, very expensive, R2R Multibit DACs. I know at one point, they were signing the high prasies of some Japanese made DAC that used a Phlllips TDA1541 DAC, which is the same DAC used in early 80s Magnavox CD players that they trashed.
I lost myself in their rabbithole and some also claim that a CD sounds better than a WAV-PCM rip of that CD, which in turn sounds better than a FLAC of that CD. Of course without any evidence.
Maybe they used just the wrong cable when they listen to it ::)
Lots of bluster about Nakamichi et. al; zero acknowledgement that your assertion of DDD being the reason priest...live! is sub-par is without merit.
This is germane to the topic because you used the argument to intimate that, at a minimum, digital recording and mixing were technologically inferior to their analog counterparts back then. At least that’s my impression.
What I said is that was the only DDD example we had at the time and it sounded awful, we didn't know why but reasonably attributed it to the method. DAT recorders weren't available until 1987. Judas Priest Live was released 5/27/87. We had no way at the time to make a comparison on our own recordings or any others. We couldn't get our first DAT machine until1989, let alone digital mixers or even decent computers. It was way too early and hella expensive ($20 blank DAT tapes, that's almost $45 today)That's why we used a PCM that used VHS tapes for live recordings and it worked quite well for the time. We were all pro-digital. My buddy even paid $1700 in 1989 for an Ensoniq keyboard that could play samples from a floppy disc. They were exciting times. Here, read for yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Tape. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoniq_VFX
By the way UPS left that keyboard in the driveway.
I lost myself in their rabbithole and some also claim that a CD sounds better than a WAV-PCM rip of that CD, which in turn sounds better than a FLAC of that CD. Of course without any evidence.
Maybe they used just the wrong cable when they listen to it ::)
There's a video on YouTube from some audiophile convention where some panelist claims he can hear a huge difference between a WAV file and a FLAC file. And he goes on about for longer than he should.
I don’t agree that it was a reasonable assumption to blame the technology and I don’t see the point in discussing hardware as it relates to your stated preference for AAD. There are humans involved in the process. They make subjective decisions and are fallible.
As for releases, Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was DDD if I’m not mistaken. Rush Power Windows and Hold Your Fire both are superb.
EDIT: Wikipedia has some examples of DDD releases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
Apparently Brothers in Arms was technically DAD. It lists Scorpions Love at First Sting as DDD.
Sometime in the mid-80s I bought an Alexis Quadraverb. It demonsted to me that digital sampling and playback could be done transparently. This is merely an anecdote, however. It does nothing to shoot down any myths about the superiority of vinyl.
EDIT: Wikipedia has some examples of DDD releases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
I love the mentioning of Weny Carlos' "Switched-on Bach 2000" being DDDD because all instruments were also digital.
It's a shame that SPARS codes never made it to analog media eg. ADA/DDA, so that people would realize that some analog sound was digitally processed.
It's a shame that SPARS codes never made it to analog media eg. ADA/DDA, so that people would realize that some analog sound was digitally processed.
This would probably destroy some, recently I found some guy who is all about analog sound and processing as being better (for him). He made some nice tipps for good music but otherwise it was just sad. I think he wouldn't believe one word on the Vinyl myths page.
It's a shame that SPARS codes never made it to analog media eg. ADA/DDA, so that people would realize that some analog sound was digitally processed.
Here’s something to chew on:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=116482.0
TL;DR-
Since the early '80s many vinyl releases were/are in fact AAD/ADD/DAD/DDD. IOW there was a digital process immediately prior to cutting the 1st gen master used for the pressing, or whatever is the correct term for what came directly after the digital delay line which became commonly used and, by definition, part of the mastering process.
I don’t agree that it was a reasonable assumption to blame the technology and I don’t see the point in discussing hardware as it relates to your stated preference for AAD. There are humans involved in the process. They make subjective decisions and are fallible.
As for releases, Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was DDD if I’m not mistaken. Rush Power Windows and Hold Your Fire both are superb.
EDIT: Wikipedia has some examples of DDD releases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
Apparently Brothers in Arms was technically DAD. It lists Scorpions Love at First Sting as DDD.
Sometime in the mid-80s I bought an Alexis Quadraverb. It demonsted to me that digital sampling and playback could be done transparently. This is merely an anecdote, however. It does nothing to shoot down any myths about the superiority of vinyl.
What is funny is my record store friend mentioned how Love At First Sting was one of the best produced albums of all time and I wholly agree.